I don't want to sound anti-christian, but one of the things I remember being struck by, many times, in the new testament, was Jesus being surprised by the lack of understanding of his disciples. This fits an ancient literary formula similar to the Socratic dialogues, in which one recognizes a higher mind through the reportage of a lower one.

   My point about this is that hair-splitting, line quoting, and interpretting points to pieces has never seemed to me a very spiritual enterprise. It seems to me that the overwhelming sense of the thing is that to be good is very hard, and that most interpretation tends to lead rather predictably to an easier version, more like the way half-decent people tend to live our compromised lives.

I don't know what's in Gibson's heart or much care. If I see the movie it won't be to eat his heart. No amount or kind of subject matter makes a movie anything more than a movie, and even if it were a documentary of the event it would still be somebody's version. It's bound to be anti-Jewish to the extent of not sharing that faith, but what matters more than the intent is the effect, and whether Christians and others are taking guidance about hate and faith from Mel Gibson movies or from within.

   Whether it's a good movie is a question of movies, fiction, theatre, and such, not a theological question or a historical question.